Plans to construct 235 new homes in Draycott, a Gloucestershire village situated near the M5 motorway, have been approved despite significant local opposition centred on road safety and congestion issues.
Developer Robert Hitchins Limited received outline permission to build on nearly 24 acres of land west of the A4135. The local authority’s development control committee heard that this scheme forms part of a broader plan to create a 1,000-home neighbourhood extending from Draycott and Cam.
Proponents of the project describe it as an “attractive” addition that will integrate seamlessly with the north-western expansion of the area. However, dozens of objections were raised, voicing apprehension that the development will combine separate parishes into one continuous urban sprawl.
READ MORE: Gloucester Council Defends Sports Pitch Fee Increases Amid Local Club Concerns
READ MORE: Villages in Cotswolds Resist Plans for Thousands of New Homes
Councillor Tina Walker of Cam Parish Council addressed the committee on 28 July, calling for the decision to be deferred until outstanding matters involving density, ecological impact, and particularly highway access are satisfactorily resolved. She highlighted continuing concerns over the safety and capacity of the Box Road junction, a known trouble spot.
“Gloucestershire County Council recognises that the Box Road junction requires redevelopment to support the Persimmon and Robert Hitchins developments,” she explained. The county council has recommended refusal of the plans until the junction’s necessary improvements, including a roundabout at Goldfinch Edge and adequate access for emergency vehicles, are fully agreed and implemented.
Councillor Walker criticised the idea of deferring these critical issues to conditions attached to the planning permission, asserting that this approach is no longer acceptable. She also noted that access points supplied by other parts of the wider estate remain unsigned off by the county council, delaying construction.
Labour Councillor Terri Kinnison from Cam West echoed these concerns, emphasising that the development’s impacts extend well beyond the immediate site. She said residents and local representatives alike worry about the ongoing expansion of the village and lamented unfulfilled infrastructure promises.
“Cam has already endured many years of large-scale development along its eastern and western edges,” she noted. Residents have suffered from increased noise, dust, mud, and escalating traffic levels leading to travel delays.
Officers clarified that the application was for outline permission, with detailed access plans, including the proposed roundabout, to be addressed later. John Chaplin, the council’s majors and environment team manager, recognised the concerns but reminded the committee that access considerations fall outside the scope of this outline application.
During discussions, Conservative Councillor Lindsey Green raised questions about the enforceability of proposed conditions and sought assurance that local general practitioner surgeries and secondary schools have sufficient capacity to accommodate the new population. Officers confirmed that developer contributions towards these services had been requested by the relevant authorities.
Green also proposed deferring the decision pending a formal response from Gloucestershire County Council regarding highways issues and clearer details on developer contributions; however, this motion was not seconded.
Other councillors, including Martin Pearcy and Milly Hill, voiced worries about the volume of traffic the development would generate. Pearcy highlighted potential congestion at the Box Road junction and around Cam and Dursley station, with residents possibly taking risks to access train services. Hill described a narrow, hazardous railway bridge near Slimbridge as a particular concern and lamented the ongoing disruption residents face from constant building noise and dust.
Despite the anxieties expressed, Councillor Dave Matthews suggested that concerns would be further examined when reserved matters applications are submitted and recommended approval with advisories identifying outstanding issues.
The committee ultimately voted in favour of granting outline permission, with six votes supporting, two opposing, and one abstention, allowing the development to move forward amid continued debate over its impact on local infrastructure and community wellbeing.